From: Caleb Epstein (caleb.epstein_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-10-29 13:21:03
On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 20:35:39 +0200, John Torjo <john.lists_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> > - I miss priority/severity levels :-(
> I don't like the idea of locking you into some fixed priority/security
> You can always create your own "app.err" (error), "app.dbg" (debug),
> "app.warn" logs, and log directly there (which you can then
> enable/disable at any time)
... and independently of one another. Most logging implementations I
have seen have a threshold level and any message at or above this
level will get logged. Your implementation allows one to, say, enable
debugging messages, without causing *every other* log to be enabled as
well. This could be quite handy.
> Whenever you add an appender/modifier, you don't specify which log it
> will be added to - you specify a logs_specification, where you can use
> the * wildcard (same goes for enabling/disabling).
> > And a question:
> > - Did you consider the possibility to integrate with syslog / NT event log?
> Yes, in the future. Any help is welcome in this area.
I can't really help with this, but I think this and other types of
appenders (e.g. write_to_file) will need to carry state inside
themselves in order to be able to deal with resources efficiently.
Opening, writing, and closing on every "write" call doesn't scale.
Wouldn't it make more sense for the log_manager to keep track of
shared_ptr<appender>, instead of various appenders having
shared_ptr<some control structure>?
-- Caleb Epstein caleb.epstein_at_[hidden]
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk